As i indicated in the previous post to toooldtofly, it isn't necessarily in TPL's best interests to exact the absolute highest license fee from a particular infringer if that infringer licenses multiple portfolios.

It's hard to know for sure, but even if PTSC has forbidden a single license to cover multiple portfolios, in otherwords, they require a separate and distinct license for the MMP, vs Core Flash, vs OnSpec, etc., if TPL is simultaneously negotiating and signing an infringer, or even staggering those signings, if they have the ability to approach an infringer for multiple portfolios in the negotiation, it may be in their best interest to do so at a lower fee, or even the same fee that they should have approached them if it were only for the MMP.

Due to the shared nature of the revenues of MMP deals, as my previous example showed, a $15M multi license deal may be more lucrative to TPL than a $17M MMP only deal. Even if the MMP is weighted 2 to 1 in the multi license deal.

Has anyone seen anything in the new agreements that would prevent that from happening? How can PTSC even control that if they allow comingling of licensing as they obviously still are based on the post settlement Pentair signing. In contrast to the Apple deal where TPL started with a fee breakdown largely in favor of the MMP, and then switched it internally to a breakdown that the MMP was less than 20% allegedly, if TPL went into the negotiations with the likelihood that they could get $17M for the MMP alone, but instead approached the infringer from the beginning with an offer of $15M for everything as an incentive to sign, and still weighted the MMP portion as a 2 to 1 majority of the fee, they personally would make out better than if they signed the infringer to just the MMP at $17M. This might hold true even if they later sold the other portofolios to them depending on the value of those other portfolio licenses.

I hope they've contemplated this strategy from TPL, and that they have some controls in place to prevent it from occurring.